See, I don't write straight characters. I don't write gay characters. Not that I don't like them or see an issue with anyone being either. But why would I limit my babies to the joys of just one sex? As a writer who loves to include relationship related drama in all my stories, it seems silly to label them as on or the other. So instead, I just make them. And if a label is needed than "bisexual" wins out.

There's one main reason I don't have my creations fall on either extreme side of the Kinsey scale and that's freedom. If, after sleeping with a hundred guys, John Hoe tells me he wants to hook up with the girl next door, he will. He's not questioning his orientation or giving up the D for good. He's not even experimenting. He just wants some lady-loving. And why can't that happen? Is it really so strange to hear of someone switching teams on a dime?

If you doubt this, I feel sorry for you.

See, human beings have this amazing ability to enjoy sex. All kinds of sex. It doesn't matter if its homo or hetero, its sex. The parts between the legs matter less than the connection between the people. So yea, Caleb's been banging the same dude for years. But that doesn't mean he can hop in bed with some sexy blond chickie, too. I'd never put that kind of limitations in a story because as we all know, characters take on a life of their own and before you realize it, they're cozying up to someone you never imagined in a million years would light their fire.

Its happened before. It will happen again. In fact, its happening right now.

While we're on the subject of same sex love in fiction, why the fuck is there a "gay" genre? Gay is a trait of a character. Since when did traits become the ultimate decider in what kind of movie it is? Anytime there's a gay lead, its a gay-romance/comedy/porno/whatever film. Total balls, dude. Describing a genre as gay is just plain gay.

And here we've fallen into another reason why gay/straight is silly to me: Hollywood Harem is an erotic drama serial, not a gay drama. No matter who shags who, I would never call it that. That I see something wrong with. Sexuality can be inconsequential to a story even if there are so many examples intent on proving otherwise. Happens all the time with straight leads. No one ever callThere's Something About Mary a straight comedy, right? Of fucking course not. Now, if it wasThere's Something About Maurice, it'd have been a totes different story.

Another Gay Movie, Brokeback Mountain, Latter Days, Edge of Seventeen among countless others are no mare than the sexuality of their characters. Sexuality is a part of them but should never define them. That's just stupid. And lazy. (Also, Brokeback Mountain is so far overrated that the fact it is held in such high regard is mind boggling.) Now Bride of Chucky got it right. There's a gay character there. Or rather, a character who just happens to be gay. He is not his sexuality, he simply has a sexuality. Yes, his sexual orientation is used for a rather comical moment but gay is not all he is. And he's not on a neverending quest for cock, either (another overused lazy ass plot). Take away his penchant for penis and he'd still be him.